4635 réponses à ce sujet

[midnight tea]

Don't really want to get back into this pointless argument, but just because the Inquisitor most likely won't return as protagonist (or main protagonist) doesn't mean they won't appear at all during the Solas arc

 

I don't think I've written anything that disagrees with such assessment, nor suggests that Inky can return *only* as protagonist  Still, considering that "Solas arc" will likely be a significant part of the future game, so is probably Inky's presence - it'd just be weird if past protagonist just swooped up at the end to stop Solas, rather than being actively involved in it all the way through, like we see them in the post-epilogue scene in Trespasser where they organize everything and are already in search of people 'Solas doesn't know'.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Don't really want to get back into this pointless argument, but just because the Inquisitor most likely won't return as protagonist (or main protagonist) doesn't mean they won't appear at all during the Solas arc

But if they aren't the or a protagonist, then all that leaves is being a NPC like Hawke was in DAI. 

[midnight tea]

But if they aren't the or a protagonist, then all that leaves is being a NPC like Hawke was in DAI. 

 

We've been through this. Nobody said that they can't pull off double protagonist...

[umadcommander]

the inquisitor losing the mark was probably the sign that they wont be the player character again, i cant help but feel if they were going to be used as the main again then trespasser wouldnt have defanged the inquisition to such an extreme degree, could be wrong i suppose its an excuse for a fresh start and not being super OP at the beginning of the game, i just think its unlikely

[German Soldier]

I play Bioware games for the plot. If the plot is that I'm going to play a character who gets manipulated by the villain for the entire game, finally finds out, then just shrugs and says whatever, I'm not interested. 

 

Maybe Bioware could write an amazing new protagonist, with a deep involvement with the plot, but the entire time I play as them I won't care - because there is nothing to say Bioware won't pull this again, and that new protagonist won't get to face their villain either. Maybe the next game will also end with them just shrugging at the villain and leaving everything for the next protagonist. Repeat to infinity. I have zero reason to care about their struggle if at any point Bioware could just decide my character doesn't care. If at any point Bioware could just drop the plot I've become invested in. It's not worth it for me to get involved in a storyline and a character that isn't going to get an ending, because swearing to defeat the antagonist and then doing nothing is not an ending. 

Didn't they did the same thing in the past With Hawke and Corypheus?

[Hanako Ikezawa]

We've been through this. Nobody said that they can't pull off double protagonist...

I addressed that. That's why I said "the or a", as in the only or one of a pair of protagonists.  

[CardButton]

It is a heck of a contridiction though isnt it. for the writers to give you the "im going to save you" option then have her say "though my own adventuring days are over" maybe they didnt think that quite through. but since i havent seen the next game I can only assume that my inquisitor is in the dark basement somewhere with a large portion of her friends and her sending crystal tracking down solas and i wont know what comes of that until the release.

Weird thing about that line ... you literally only get it if you bind the Inquisition to the Chantry.  If you disband, you don't get it at all.  

 

If Bioware really intended for that line to hold any real weight wouldn't have served better in reverse?  With the disbanded Inquisitor admitting to a small, intimate group of their allies that they no longer feel they are capable of continuing in an adventuring capacity?  I always found it strange, because with the way Bioware went about it, it certainly does seems like a distractionary tactic.  Told to a room full of people which the Inquisitor was very much aware contained agents of both the Qun and Solas.  Quite odd indeed ... very counter-intuitive  .

[CardButton]

I play Bioware games for the plot. If the plot is that I'm going to play a character who gets manipulated by the villain for the entire game, finally finds out, then just shrugs and says whatever, I'm not interested. 

 

Maybe Bioware could write an amazing new protagonist, with a deep involvement with the plot, but the entire time I play as them I won't care - because there is nothing to say Bioware won't pull this again, and that new protagonist won't get to face their villain either. Maybe the next game will also end with them just shrugging at the villain and leaving everything for the next protagonist. Repeat to infinity. I have zero reason to care about their struggle if at any point Bioware could just decide my character doesn't care. If at any point Bioware could just drop the plot I've become invested in. It's not worth it for me to get involved in a storyline and a character that isn't going to get an ending, because swearing to defeat the antagonist and then doing nothing is not an ending. 

To be honest, the worst part about this for me in terms of the Inquisitor shuffling responsibility off to someone else is that ... Solas straight up said he's going to "End your world".  I just find it perpetually odd this sentiment that goes "welp, my PC has no idea when Solas intends to enact his evil plans.  It could be a century from now, it could be next year, but you know what ... their retired.  I got my happy ending that might only last till next Friday before the Veil comes crashing down on top of my PC and their LI's heads, but I'm good ... I'm good".  Not to mention if Bioware really wanted to "retire" the Inquisitor the way they went about it, with what they had to work with, was remarkably strange.  Like here I could fix this right now, set up an opening for a new PC to find themselves in the conflict with Solas, and do it without changing hardly any of the content from "Trespasser". 

 

Bioware could have easily just side-lined the Inquisitor by having Solas Petrify them after removing the Anchor (perhaps he thinks this may save the Inquisitor from removal of the Veil, or wants them to suffer after they are thawed out too late to stop him, who knows). This would not be perceived as a hard-core death; it would distract the Inquisitor's remaining friends and allies with trying to find a way to free them from their stone prison, while still giving the important "world-ending" set-up to the Players; and Solas' "e-vile" plans would remain a secret until such a time where the Inquisitor was freed.  Then a New DA:4 PC who has had plenty of time to be developed independently from the Solas issue, would be the one to save the Inquisitor at some point during their game.  BUT the Inquisitor would be "un-thawed" in the same state they were in just before becoming a statue, where they are simply in no physical condition to stop Solas themselves after just having their arm gutted by magic.  They could then logically be quietly shuffled to the side, pushed in a advisory role, or serve in a cinematic capacity only from that point on (even if the player gets to choose a bit of their dialogue for all three options). The only major difference is that the Inquisitor would have to decide on what happens to the Inquisition after they return a game later, to find out how the orginization fared in their absence.

There Bioware, that's how you go about doing such a thing with the set-up you had, if what you had in mind was the Inquisitor's "forced retirement". 

[nightscrawl]

They very purposefully had every single Inquisitor end in pretty much the same state.

 

Every single Inquisitor ends with the Inquisition either disbanded or put under the rulership of someone else, every single Inquisitor swears to Solas that they will save or stop him, every single Inquisitor heads north to Tevinter to find a way to stop him. That's stated in every single version of the game no matter what options you pick. All the things you mention are very very minor points that wouldn't have any effect on the next game.

 

The one line about adventuring days which you say to a crowd is always imminently followed by showing that same Inquisitor in secret, heading north to stop Solas anyway.

 

Any talk of the Inquisitor saying this or that thing, what dialogue options they choose, what those options mean, whether they want to retire, or whatever other thing is rendered moot by the final post-credit cinematics of Trespasser. The Inquisitor is shown in the game itself to be personally involved and invested in whatever comes next; they are actively planning for the future.

 

There is no retirement. I feel for those people that want to roleplay that, I truly do, but that is contrary to what the game portrays the Inquisitor as doing. Of course, this doesn't state what their involvement will be, or how, but they ARE involved in some manner.

 

 

We've been through this. Nobody said that they can't pull off double protagonist...

 

I think most of the concern with this comes in that they haven't done this before with Dragon Age, so people are worried it might not even be a thing. While I can understand that, I prefer to be optimistic about the prospect of a dual protagonist. I would GREATLY prefer that over a NPC like Hawke that I can't control or roleplay as my own character.

[nightscrawl]

Bioware could have easily just side-lined the Inquisitor by having Solas Petrify them after removing the Anchor (perhaps he thinks this may save the Inquisitor from removal of the Veil, or wants them to suffer after they are thawed out too late to stop him, who knows). This would not be perceived as a hard-core death; it would distract the Inquisitor's remaining friends and allies with trying to find a way to free them from their stone prison, while still giving the important "world-ending" set-up to the Players; and Solas' "e-vile" plans would remain a secret until such a time where the Inquisitor was freed.  Then a New DA:4 PC who has had plenty of time to be developed independently from the Solas issue, would be the one to save the Inquisitor at some point during their game.  BUT the Inquisitor would be "un-thawed" in the same state they were in just before becoming a statue, where they are simply in no physical condition to stop Solas themselves after just having their arm gutted by magic.  They could then logically be quietly shuffled to the side, pushed in a advisory role, or serve in a cinematic capacity only from that point on (even if the player gets to choose a bit of their dialogue for all three options). The only major difference is that the Inquisitor would have to decide on what happens to the Inquisition after they return a game later, to find out how the orginization fared in their absence.

There Bioware, that's how you go about doing such a thing with the set-up you had, if what you had in mind was the Inquisitor's "forced retirement". 

I never really pay much attention to fan ideas, thinking, "What's the point? It's likely not close to Bioware's intention," but I have to say that I DO quite like this one! With this idea, there is a goodly amount of angst at the end of Trespasser, and the Inquisitor is eventually saved, but not in a manner that would allow them to become the next protagonist. That's not to say I would have been happy with such an ending to Trespasser, and it's very "Han Solo in carbonite," but it's certainly compelling.

I'll add also that I don't think that Bioware would have allowed the Trespasser marriages if they were going to truly kill off the Inquisitor (permanent death). They like fan tears and all that, but I think that would have been needlessly cruel. I say this as someone who did not get married in Trespasser.

[Seraphim24]

I think honestly considering how far gone Solas is by the time you encounter him, the second it becomes clear he's responsible for Orb and the chain of death, the game of should of just given an option to just kill Solas, just like rift off the bat, just immediately. It would just be clear self-defense at that point.

 

That man is seriously less than trash, it's amazing he ever even finds the confidence to utter a single word, knowing how utterly undesirable and repulsive, disgusting, and degenerate that he is...

 

A maggot is so infinitely evolved the likes of him it's not even funny.

[Filament]

 

A maggot is so infinitely evolved the likes of him it's not even funny.

 

Comparing the level of evolution of any extant species is a common misconception about evolution.

[Seraphim24]

Comparing the level of evolution of any extant species is a common misconception about evolution.

 

Oh! Well I appear to have been wrong headed in my analogy, biology wasn't my favorite class

[BansheeOwnage]

 

Bioware could have easily just side-lined the Inquisitor by having Solas Petrify them after removing the Anchor (perhaps he thinks this may save the Inquisitor from removal of the Veil, or wants them to suffer after they are thawed out too late to stop him, who knows). This would not be perceived as a hard-core death; it would distract the Inquisitor's remaining friends and allies with trying to find a way to free them from their stone prison, while still giving the important "world-ending" set-up to the Players; and Solas' "e-vile" plans would remain a secret until such a time where the Inquisitor was freed.  Then a New DA:4 PC who has had plenty of time to be developed independently from the Solas issue, would be the one to save the Inquisitor at some point during their game.  BUT the Inquisitor would be "un-thawed" in the same state they were in just before becoming a statue, where they are simply in no physical condition to stop Solas themselves after just having their arm gutted by magic.  They could then logically be quietly shuffled to the side, pushed in a advisory role, or serve in a cinematic capacity only from that point on (even if the player gets to choose a bit of their dialogue for all three options). The only major difference is that the Inquisitor would have to decide on what happens to the Inquisition after they return a game later, to find out how the orginization fared in their absence.

There Bioware, that's how you go about doing such a thing with the set-up you had, if what you had in mind was the Inquisitor's "forced retirement". 

Another idea Bioware could have easily used if they wanted to introduce a new protagonist while leaving the Inquisitor alone would have been to simply have the DLC play out in exactly the same way until you meet Solas, then have him explain who he is and talk about history, save you by removing the mark... but not tell you he plans of destroying the world, only that he will do something, but vague enough that the Inquisitor doesn't just assume their former colleague/friend/lover plans on destroying the world as they know it. And he goes through the eluvian.

 

If they really wanted, they could have another scene (without the Inquisitor present) like the one after the base-game credits that explains he does plan on destroying the world if they wanted a sequel hook. This way, the Inquisitor might be surprised and amazed by all they learned, but doesn't assume there is any imminent danger, and can retire. A new PC can discover Solas intentions.

 

I would still much rather play as the Inquisitor regardless, for the opportunity of having the hero and villain have such a unique connection, but at least that would have made more sense that having them vow to stop him, start actively acting against him, and be potentially sidelined because they've been maimed. Or Maimed so they can be sidelined.

 

 

There is no retirement. I feel for those people that want to roleplay that, I truly do, but that is contrary to what the game portrays the Inquisitor as doing. Of course, this doesn't state what their involvement will be, or how, but they ARE involved in some manner.

I think a lot of the confusion comes from the epilogue slides, which show the Inquisitor doing various retired-y things, like pulling pranks with Sera or hanging out with Cullen and his/your new dog. This is admittedly odd, but after some discussion my girlfriend and I came to the conclusion that these particular slides must be set after DA4. At least, that's the only thing that made any sense, because they blatantly contradict the scene in the basement scene/vowing to stop Solas, and are also out-of-character not just for the Inquisitor, but for the Inner Circle, too.

[lynroy]

I think honestly considering how far gone Solas is by the time you encounter him, the second it becomes clear he's responsible for Orb and the chain of death, the game of should of just given an option to just kill Solas, just like rift off the bat, just immediately. It would just be clear self-defense at that point.

There is a point where you can try to kill Solas after learning that. It works out so well for the Inquisitor.

[Abyss108]

 

Didn't they did the same thing in the past With Hawke and Corypheus?

 

 

No? Hawke had one scene with Corytheus, not an entire game, and also didn't know Cory was still around to need stopping. So nothing alike.

[Patricia08]

Correct. The moment they confirm the Inquisitor doesn't return, I'm done here. 

 

I think i will do the same and join you in this .  

[nightscrawl]

I think a lot of the confusion comes from the epilogue slides, which show the Inquisitor doing various retired-y things, like pulling pranks with Sera or hanging out with Cullen and his/your new dog. This is admittedly odd, but after some discussion my girlfriend and I came to the conclusion that these particular slides must be set after DA4. At least, that's the only thing that made any sense, because they blatantly contradict the scene in the basement scene/vowing to stop Solas, and are also out-of-character not just for the Inquisitor, but for the Inner Circle, too.

Eh, that only applies to some Inquisitors, though. The most mine got was a reference to occasional visits to Dorian, as he turned down the offer from Sera. To be honest, I don't think that they should ever do any sort of definite epilogue slides if they are planning to use the character again; they really screw themselves over that way.

BUT I will say that I don't think they are too contradictory. I don't think it's unreasonable for the Inquisitor to spend some weeks or months getting used to the new state of things: the "new" Inquisition under the Chantry or a disbanded Inquisition, having one arm, being married or being separated from your partner. This is just headcanon stuff, obviously, but I know my guy spends quite a while really messed up over things. Not only does he have to relearn how to do basic things with one arm (put on pants, etc), he has to relearn to fight (SnS warrior), and his love is 1000 miles away. I refuse to incorporate any sort of arm device into my headcanon until I see what Bioware has to offer. Some ideas are fun to play with, certainly, and I have done that, but nothing I'm really entrenching as part of the fabric of my character's well-being as I find that pointless if it is to be overwritten in the following game.

[Abyss108]

I don't think it's a contradiction. Solas states his plan will take several years, so there's a few years of peace first. Inquisitor won't be spending 24 hours a day doing sneaky stuff, there will be down time.

[midnight tea]

I don't think it's a contradiction. Solas states his plan will take several years, so there's a few years of peace first. Inquisitor won't be spending 24 hours a day doing sneaky stuff, there will be down time.

 

Plus. nobody said that Red Jenny isn't in any way involved in "sneaky stuff"...

[Almostfaceman]

Well, defining what is or isn't natural is always difficult, because it is a very relative term depending on who is asking, and when. 

 

I don't agree that this is as muddy a situation as you think it is. For example, our species only naturally exists with an earth that possesses a magnetic field strong enough to shield us and our atmosphere from the ravages of solar winds. Remove the magnetic field and we cease to exist. There is a natural equilibrium. 

 

Our bodies naturally require oxygen to operate. Remove oxygen from our atmosphere and our species ceases to exist.

 

In Thedas, our consciousnesses exists in a natural state with the Fade. This natural state has been disrupted by an artificial construct. It's like a human gasping for breath in an oxygen-shallow environment because they're forced by a magic spell to live at uncomfortably high altitudes. It's a problem of the natural environment being disrupted. 

[nightscrawl]

I don't agree that this is as muddy a situation as you think it is. For example, our species only naturally exists with an earth that possesses a magnetic field strong enough to shield us and our atmosphere from the ravages of solar winds. Remove the magnetic field and we cease to exist. There is a natural equilibrium. 

 

Our bodies naturally require oxygen to operate. Remove oxygen from our atmosphere and our species ceases to exist.

 

In Thedas, our consciousnesses exists in a natural state with the Fade. This natural state has been disrupted by an artificial construct. It's like a human gasping for breath in an oxygen-shallow environment because they're forced by a magic spell to live at uncomfortably high altitudes. It's a problem of the natural environment being disrupted. 

 

There are many millions of people all throughout Thedas content to live as they have been living*. I don't think that Solas has the right to determine the fate of all of those millions of people just because HE thinks they are somehow deprived, or not living up to their potential, or whatever other thought process. I don't think he alone gets to make that decision, no matter how old he is, no matter where he comes from.

 

This is really the main issue I have with Solas's viewpoint. Sure, he wants to restore "his people," whoever those are; I get that. He feels guilty for his previous actions, and for his possible future actions; I get that too. But what I cannot accept is the reasoning that it is somehow justified because he feels like he's walking around in a world of lobotomy victims. (Yes, I have seen that phrasing used in Solas discussions.) People have been living with the Veil in place for thousands of years. Did it never occur to Solas that perhaps people in general -- yes, even mages -- are accustomed to this existence, and that bringing down the Veil will be as chaotic for them as raising it was for his people all those millennia ago?

 

 

 

* I am of course referring to living in relation to the Veil being in place, not about living in poverty, or under oppression, or whatever other terrible circumstance, that, incidentally, we know also existed under the evanuris.

[Almostfaceman]

There are many millions of people all throughout Thedas content to live as they have been living*. I don't think that Solas has the right to determine the fate of all of those millions of people just because HE thinks they are somehow deprived, or not living up to their potential, or whatever other thought process. I don't think he alone gets to make that decision, no matter how old he is, no matter where he comes from.

 

This is really the main issue I have with Solas's viewpoint. Sure, he wants to restore "his people," whoever those are; I get that. He feels guilty for his previous actions, and for his possible future actions; I get that too. But what I cannot accept is the reasoning that it is somehow justified because he feels like he's walking around in a world of lobotomy victims. (Yes, I have seen that phrasing used in Solas discussions.) People have been living with the Veil in place for thousands of years. Did it never occur to Solas that perhaps people in general -- yes, even mages -- are accustomed to this existence, and that bringing down the veil will be as chaotic for them as raising it was for his people all those millennia ago?

 

 

 

* I am of course referring to living in relation to the Veil being in place, not about living in poverty, or under oppression, or whatever other terrible circumstance, that, incidentally, we know also existed under the evanuris.

 

I can understand this point of view. I even share it with the caveat that Bioware may reveal more aspects of what's going on that will further complicate the issue. They may really be pushing for that "ruthless calculus of war" they mention in Mass Effect. 

[nightscrawl]

I can understand this point of view. I even share it with the caveat that Bioware may reveal more aspects of what's going on that will further complicate the issue. They may really be pushing for that "ruthless calculus of war" they mention in Mass Effect. 

 

Honestly, I'm hoping that there are no such reveals until we play the game. I like the story to speak for itself, not have devs tell me what is going on. However, I suppose I don't have to worry overmuch for myself, since I will be dropping out of DA fandom (most aspects of it, anyway) shortly after an announcement is made, or we get some sort of teaser trailer... whenever that is.

 

Buuuuut, I certainly wouldn't mind if all of these things were a bit more fleshed out in a novel. I think there are some things that the novel format is better suited to, and this might be one of those things. I know that fans will rage about "required reading," and I share that sentiment to a degree, but I think the story would benefit from it in this case. The alternative is another series of info dumps like we got in Trespasser, and I think that many, even Solas fans, would say that that isn't necessarily the best way to go about things.

[IllustriousT]

DA4 could occur many years after the events of Trespasser. I have thought about the inquisitor growing old - despite his/her efforts to find Solas to no avail. It sounds really crappy, I know, but Thedas needs a break for a least 50 years after the events of the previous games. It would be a perfect time for something to occur that would impact the name of the next age. All new characters with no returning characters - I would miss them though  . 

 

Solas can bide his time.